Expectations

[BigHog396]

Things have been better with Mike. People forget quickly how bad it was. I have hope again.

Mike will give us a real chance every few seasons.

We lost great players to other schools because kids don't remember the Hogs being great. I think Mike is turning this around.

We were great for a short time in history. I don't think those days will ever happen again. Even if they do it is still damn hard to win a natty.

People that don't like the coach never will but he is successful and unless he retires will be here awhile.

Couple players stay and we don't pull UNC I think things would look even better. He has faults but there has been some nasty bad luck.

This team will improve and should finish strong.

Just win. Only way to beat the haters.

We were great for much more than a "short time."  We had a 25-year run of consistent success in the regular and post seasons.  We had a 25-year run where we were in the single digits in losses for 17 of those 25 years.  I'll give you that the last 6 years under Nolan were not what the previous 19 years of that run were, but he was still making the dance.  He was fired for the regression of the program.  He quit feeding the monster.

I don't see anyone on here saying that a NC is the measure by which MA is being judged.  Of course, he would have to be able to get a team out of the first weekend of the NCAAT to worry about that.  The measure would be consistently getting to the dance (something around at least 6-7 times out of every 8 years), and getting to the Sweet 16 probably 3 out of every 8 years.  Our program is very capable of that level of success, especially with the right coach.

I get that the kids on here don't remember how dominant we were for a quarter century, but that quarter century was much more than a "short time."  The bones of the program are still there.  We have the facilities.  We have the fan base.  The fans at BWA make it one of the toughest places to play in the entire nation, when we put a good team on the court.

Mike has simply not been successful, regardless of what you say.  If Mike had been successful, you wouldn't see people on here talking about all of his short-comings as a coach, and his short-comings in the results on the court to this point in his tenure here.

Nolan had very good teams consistently for his first decade (after he had a couple of years to get his players here), but he didn't get to the top until he went out an got the "men" Larry Johnson told him to get.  Those teams were good at playing half-court offense and defense when needed, but then putting on the tightest press you have ever seen when needed.  It's that ability to adapt that made our best teams what they were.  You don't see any of that adaptability from Mike's teams, and without that, you will never see a consistently successful program with this system.

[Letsroll1200]

Mike will win a national championship at Arkansas. Arkansas just might win the SEC tournament championship this season.

[BigHog396]

No you don't need to ramble any more. 

Let's start with the tournament 8/15 years - that's not bad, first off, but when you consider that mike has taken over programs in bad shape it gets even better.  Let's say you give him 2 years to rebuild st each spot, that give him the tournament 7 out 9 years. 

Then a sweet sixteen run and elite eight run out of 8 tournament appearances isn't great but it's also not the worst in the world.  Lots of second round exits in that span too.  I don't think mikes teams have leaked here though.

His tournament success here doesn't seem like an indicator that we won't ever be good enough for a NC, it doesn't mean we ever will be good alenough either.  I wonder if you apply this logic to your own basketball game?  Like you shoot a three, Miss, shoot another three, Miss and then you say, gee, I won't ever be able to make a three pointer.

Then you pick out some flaws you think you see that you think can't be corrected not acknowledging that every team has them.

No rambling at all.  I stated a pretty long list of facts about the deficiencies of our teams over the last 6.5 years, and you weren't able to dismiss any of those shortcomings with any facts.  What you did was ramble.

I didn't like the idea of bringing Mike back, because of exactly what we are seeing now.  Half the fan base will never be willing to fire him, regardless of how long we go without any significant success on the court.

Regardless of that, I was perfectly willing to give him a chance after the decision to hire him was made.  I had a little hope that we would see some of the old HawgBall magic return, but realized that a big part of the reason the game passed Nolan by was the changes that had been made in timeouts and officiating that cut out a big part of what made that system so difficult on our opponents.  What I have seen out of Mike is exactly what I thought I would see out of Mike.  Mediocre overall coaching, and mediocre overall results when you look at his coaching tenure here.

Expectations... that's the difference between folks like you, and those of us who realize that our program is still very capable of maintaining the level of success it did for a quarter century under Sutton and Nolan, as long as we have the right coach.  Mike simply is not that.  Don't get me wrong... I hope he figures things out and turns the entire thing around.  I just don't see any signs that indicate to me that he is capable of that.

[BigHog396]

Mike will win a national championship at Arkansas. Arkansas just might win the SEC tournament championship this season.

Flat out stating that Mike WILL win a NC here... Now that's drinking some kool-aid.

[Atlhogfan1]

Next win can't get here soon enough. 

[hogsanity]

Flat out stating that Mike WILL win a NC here... Now that's drinking some kool-aid.

It just furthers the " we need to keep Mike because someday he will ( insert whatever reason to keep him for life ). Just like how every year is just " getting us to the next recruiting class which will be the one " then when said class gets here, something always happens to make us have to wait for the next class.

[3of5-2]

Flat out stating that Mike WILL win a NC here... Now that's drinking some kool-aid.

I think it's drinking more than kool-aid.

[cram224]

My minimum expectation for conference play is 10-8.  And that will get us in the dance.  It's gonna be a bloodbath for everybody.  Protect the home court and try to steal a couple on the road.

Is your expectation is to just get in the dance?

[cram224]

I'm willing to give CMA 10 years, however, after the 10th year if the best he has done is a round 1 win in the NCAAT then it what be more than time to move on. This year could possibly be his best and last chance to win two games in NCAAT.

[hobhog]

Mike Anderson is steady.

Never will he have a terrible season. Never will he have a great season

Win enough to make the NCAA tournament. Then lose on the first weekend

As proven, most hog fans are happy with that.

That is what two bad coaching hires have done to the fan base. Lowered expectations to where mediocre is acceptable

It is sad really to us that remember the great years of Sutton & Richardson

Word. So many programs have flown past us in last 20 years it's incredible. If MA had this record anytime before 1998 he'd have been fired in year 4. I was hoping this team would be really special and get the ball rolling again but have concerns we will be 7-8-9 seed. We will make the tourney and moat will be okay with that. It is what it is.

[Fan701]

Word. So many programs have flown past us in last 20 years it's incredible. If MA had this record anytime before 1998 he'd have been fired in year 4. I was hoping this team would be really special and get the ball rolling again but have concerns we will be 7-8-9 seed. We will make the tourney and moat will be okay with that. It is what it is.

I understand your frustration.  Everyone wants us to be an elite program, which we were, all too briefly back in the day.  A couple of thoughts, though, and these aren't meant to detract from the achievements of Sutton and Richardson, which were real and impressive:  First, Sutton was facing SWC competition, which meant there was usually only one other team in the league that could compete with us.  Nolan put up some big numbers in the SWC, too, after a slow start.  As for the tougher competition in the SEC, Nolan started out great and we were a power through 1995, but after that, for about Nolan's last seven years, we were mostly mediocre to just pretty good .  We never finished higher than second in the West after 1995 or had more than 24 wins (1999).  I know this is sacrilege to say, but other than the late 70's through early 80's, and 1989-1995, what we have now is about as good as we've ever had.

[hogsanity]

I understand your frustration.  Everyone wants us to be an elite program, which we were, all too briefly back in the day.  A couple of thoughts, though, and these aren't meant to detract from the achievements of Sutton and Richardson, which were real and impressive:  First, Sutton was facing SWC competition, which meant there was usually only one other team in the league that could compete with us.  Nolan put up some big numbers in the SWC, too, after a slow start.  As for the tougher competition in the SEC, Nolan started out great and we were a power through 1995, but after that, for about Nolan's last seven years, we were mostly mediocre to just pretty good .  We never finished higher than second in the West after 1995 or had more than 24 wins (1999).  I know this is sacrilege to say, but other than the late 70's through early 80's, and 1989-1995, what we have now is about as good as we've ever had.

It all came down to players, whether talking about Eddie or Nolan or Mike ( or Heath and Pelphrey for that matter ).

[cram224]

It seems we recruit way more wing players and not enough that are true 4 or 5 position players.

[hobhog]

I understand your frustration.  Everyone wants us to be an elite program, which we were, all too briefly back in the day.  A couple of thoughts, though, and these aren't meant to detract from the achievements of Sutton and Richardson, which were real and impressive:  First, Sutton was facing SWC competition, which meant there was usually only one other team in the league that could compete with us.  Nolan put up some big numbers in the SWC, too, after a slow start.  As for the tougher competition in the SEC, Nolan started out great and we were a power through 1995, but after that, for about Nolan's last seven years, we were mostly mediocre to just pretty good .  We never finished higher than second in the West after 1995 or had more than 24 wins (1999).  I know this is sacrilege to say, but other than the late 70's through early 80's, and 1989-1995, what we have now is about as good as we've ever had.

Not true.

Then why can't we win a game in the NCAA tournament? Sutton took 3 different programs to final 4. Nolan won championships on every level he coached.

Either you recruit great teams or you coach them up to be great teams. Arkansas is very capable of being better than a top 40 team every year. It's proven every year by other programs with lesser facilities, fanbase, and budgets.

And we were elite for over 20 years. It can happen with right person.

[Fan701]

Not true.

Then why can't we win a game in the NCAA tournament? Sutton took 3 different programs to final 4. Nolan won championships on every level he coached.

Either you recruit great teams or you coach them up to be great teams. Arkansas is very capable of being better than a top 40 team every year. It's proven every year by other programs with lesser facilities, fanbase, and budgets.

And we were elite for over 20 years. It can happen with right person.

I wish it weren't true, but it is.  We were elite in the late 70's with a final four and elite eight, close to elite some in the early 80's.  Definitely elite 1989-1995.  Other than those too brief periods of real glory, the best Arkansas basketball is now, that is, 2014-15, 2016-17, and this year (I think).  The good ol' days had some really high, high points but stretches of the 80's were full of mediocrity and so were the last seven years of Nolan. This is the third best period in the modern history of Arkansas basketball (the modern period, I think, starts with Eddie Sutton.)  Who knows?  Maybe it will eventually equal the best periods under Eddie and Nolan.  We'll see.

[BigHog396]

I wish it weren't true, but it is.  We were elite in the late 70's with a final four and elite eight, close to elite some in the early 80's.  Definitely elite 1989-1995.  Other than those too brief periods of real glory, the best Arkansas basketball is now, that is, 2014-15, 2016-17, and this year (I think).  The good ol' days had some really high, high points but stretches of the 80's were full of mediocrity and so were the last seven years of Nolan. This is the third best period in the modern history of Arkansas basketball (the modern period, I think, starts with Eddie Sutton.)  Who knows?  Maybe it will eventually equal the best periods under Eddie and Nolan.  We'll see.

It's not true... you need to get a grip on what constitutes an elite/nationally relevant program.  We were consistently making noise at a national level throughout the Sutton and Richardson tenures.  We had a 25 year run of being in the conversation/ranked nationally very consistently.  No one on here is saying we have to be Elite 8/Final Four consistently to be where we know the program should be.

We made the dance EVERY year of Sutton's tenure after his second year.  Outside of the transition period from Sutton to Richardson, we made the dance every year except one through 2001.  We were more nationally relevant in the '98 and '99 seasons, toward the end of Nolan's time, than we have ever been with Mike.  Nolan definitely went downhill after '96, but to act like we weren't considered a threat on a national level after '95 is just simply not knowing anything about the facts of how we were viewed nationally during that time.

[Fan701]

It's not true... you need to get a grip on what constitutes an elite/nationally relevant program.  We were consistently making noise at a national level throughout the Sutton and Richardson tenures.  We had a 25 year run of being in the conversation/ranked nationally very consistently.  No one on here is saying we have to be Elite 8/Final Four consistently to be where we know the program should be.

We made the dance EVERY year of Sutton's tenure after his second year.  Outside of the transition period from Sutton to Richardson, we made the dance every year except one through 2001.  We were more nationally relevant in the '98 and '99 seasons, toward the end of Nolan's time, than we have ever been with Mike.  Nolan definitely went downhill after '96, but to act like we weren't considered a threat on a national level after '95 is just simply not knowing anything about the facts of how we were viewed nationally during that time.

Ok.  I guess this is more of a quibble about what constitutes elite.  I'd say a little fewer than half of those 25 years we were genuinely elite.  For instance, you think Nolan's last 7 years we were nationally relevant, I disagree.  We were pretty good '97-'99, but nowhere near as good as a few years before.  Kentucky would run us off the floor every time we played them. We still got a lot of respect because of how good we'd been a few years before, but we were no longer at elite level, IMO.  Anyway, I think one thing we can agree on is that we're not elite now.

[99toLife]

It's not true... you need to get a grip on what constitutes an elite/nationally relevant program.  We were consistently making noise at a national level throughout the Sutton and Richardson tenures.  We had a 25 year run of being in the conversation/ranked nationally very consistently.  No one on here is saying we have to be Elite 8/Final Four consistently to be where we know the program should be.

We made the dance EVERY year of Sutton's tenure after his second year.  Outside of the transition period from Sutton to Richardson, we made the dance every year except one through 2001.  We were more nationally relevant in the '98 and '99 seasons, toward the end of Nolan's time, than we have ever been with Mike.  Nolan definitely went downhill after '96, but to act like we weren't considered a threat on a national level after '95 is just simply not knowing anything about the facts of how we were viewed nationally during that time.

Really we have won a grand total of 5 NCAAT Games after 1996 ( 20-Years ).. Some threat---  do the math.

[Justifiable Hogicide]

Flat out stating that Mike WILL win a NC here... Now that's drinking some kool-aid.

Mainlining heroin probably not even produce such a hallucinating trip.

[BigHog396]

Ok.  I guess this is more of a quibble about what constitutes elite.  I'd say a little fewer than half of those 25 years we were genuinely elite.  For instance, you think Nolan's last 7 years we were nationally relevant, I disagree.  We were pretty good '97-'99, but nowhere near as good as a few years before.  Kentucky would run us off the floor every time we played them. We still got a lot of respect because of how good we'd been a few years before, but we were no longer at elite level, IMO.  Anyway, I think one thing we can agree on is that we're not elite now.

Get your facts straight before jumping into a conversation making blanket statements that are totally wrong.

I agree with you that we finished what would be considered elite about half of that 25 years.  We were nationally relevant about 20 out of those 25 years.  I didn't say anything about all of Nolan's final 7 years being nationally relevant, but we definitely were in '96, '98, and '99.

We were not pretty good in '97 as you said... that was an NIT year.  If you want to pick a time frame that I am saying we were at least relevant, that would be '98 and '99.  Outside of those two, we weren't relevant after '96.  If you look at what we did against UK from '98-'01 (I already said we weren't relevant in '97), we were not even close to being blown off the floor by UK on a routine basis.  As a matter of fact, in the regular season match-ups from '98 - '01 we were 2-2 against them with wins by 4 when they were #6, and 4 when they were #13.  The two losses to them in that time frame were by 3 in OT when they were #6, and by 5 when they were #18.  We didn't do as well against them in the SECT, but we were 1-3 with one blowout win, and 2 blowout losses in that time.  So again... how exactly were we ran off the floor every time we played them in that period?

We were definitely not in the elite program conversation after '96, but we were still nationally relevant about half the time from '96-'02.  We finished the '98 and '99 seasons both ranked 17th.  The '96 season was setting up to be elite again, until the NCAA came in and screwed us and Nolan.

We weren't relevant in '00, '01, and '02.  Outside of that we were pretty much always considered a threat, and finished ranked the vast majority of the time for that period, we were also ranked in the Top 10 at some point of over half of the seasons from '77 - '99.

[BigHog396]

Really we have won a grand total of 5 NCAAT Games after 1996 ( 20-Years ).. Some threat---  do the math.

Look at our rankings in '96, '98, and '99.  All of those teams were nationally relevant.  The '96 team was screwed by the NCAA.  The '98 and '99 teams were ranked nearly all year.  If you are staying ranked nearly all year, then you are nationally relevant.  Those teams weren't elite by any stretch, but they were definitely relevant.

Try reading next time... I didn't say anything about being a threat every year after '95, I said to act like we weren't a threat after '95 was completely wrong.  As in saying we weren't a threat at all after '95 is completely wrong, which it is.  ...Reading comprehension

[Fan701]

Get your facts straight before jumping into a conversation making blanket statements that are totally wrong.

I agree with you that we finished what would be considered elite about half of that 25 years.  We were nationally relevant about 20 out of those 25 years.  I didn't say anything about all of Nolan's final 7 years being nationally relevant, but we definitely were in '96, '98, and '99.

We were not pretty good in '97 as you said... that was an NIT year.  If you want to pick a time frame that I am saying we were at least relevant, that would be '98 and '99.  Outside of those two, we weren't relevant after '96.  If you look at what we did against UK from '98-'01 (I already said we weren't relevant in '97), we were not even close to being blown off the floor by UK on a routine basis.  As a matter of fact, in the regular season match-ups from '98 - '01 we were 2-2 against them with wins by 4 when they were #6, and 4 when they were #13.  The two losses to them in that time frame were by 3 in OT when they were #6, and by 5 when they were #18.  We didn't do as well against them in the SECT, but we were 1-3 with one blowout win, and 2 blowout losses in that time.  So again... how exactly were we ran off the floor every time we played them in that period?

We were definitely not in the elite program conversation after '96, but we were still nationally relevant about half the time from '96-'02.  We finished the '98 and '99 seasons both ranked 17th.  The '96 season was setting up to be elite again, until the NCAA came in and screwed us and Nolan.

We weren't relevant in '00, '01, and '02.  Outside of that we were pretty much always considered a threat, and finished ranked the vast majority of the time for that period, we were also ranked in the Top 10 at some point of over half of the seasons from '77 - '99.

Agree with most of what you say.  Nolan did get screwed by the NCAA in 1996.  But I was specifically referring to our two best years 1997-98 and 1998-99 with my remark about Kentucky ( I wrote 1997-1999), and I guess I was remembering being manhandled by Kentucky in the tournament at the end of both seasons.  We were 1-3 against them in those seasons, which included a win in Fayetteville and an overtime loss in Lexington in addition to the two beatings we took in the tournamnents.  After 1999, Nolan had a few bright spots like winning the SEC tournament in 2000 after a very subpar season, but things were trending mostly downwards it seemed, and we dropped from the national radar.

[99toLife]

Look at our rankings in '96, '98, and '99.  All of those teams were nationally relevant.  The '96 team was screwed by the NCAA.  The '98 and '99 teams were ranked nearly all year.  If you are staying ranked nearly all year, then you are nationally relevant.  Those teams weren't elite by any stretch, but they were definitely relevant.

Try reading next time... I didn't say anything about being a threat every year after '95, I said to act like we weren't a threat after '95 was completely wrong.  As in saying we weren't a threat at all after '95 is completely wrong, which it is.  ...Reading comprehension

FYI only 2 teams in the current SEC have won less games in the NCAAT in that time span.  Not much of a threat.

BTW: Rankings don't mean threat

[razorpimp]

I wish it weren't true, but it is.  We were elite in the late 70's with a final four and elite eight, close to elite some in the early 80's.  Definitely elite 1989-1995.  Other than those too brief periods of real glory, the best Arkansas basketball is now, that is, 2014-15, 2016-17, and this year (I think).  The good ol' days had some really high, high points but stretches of the 80's were full of mediocrity and so were the last seven years of Nolan. This is the third best period in the modern history of Arkansas basketball (the modern period, I think, starts with Eddie Sutton.)  Who knows?  Maybe it will eventually equal the best periods under Eddie and Nolan.  We'll see.

So we should have kept Bielema? Because if you take Arkansas football history after 1970 you have a program that isn't elite, so we should only accept 6-7 win seasons, occasionally better.....but you also have the hiccups of 4-8...

Making the tourney in college basketball does not mean a whole lot in my opinion, it's sweet 16s that are equivalent to New Year's Day bowls

[Fan701]

So we should have kept Bielema? Because if you take Arkansas football history after 1970 you have a program that isn't elite, so we should only accept 6-7 win seasons, occasionally better.....but you also have the hiccups of 4-8...

Making the tourney in college basketball does not mean a whole lot in my opinion, it's sweet 16s that are equivalent to New Year's Day bowls

I don't see how what you wrote follows from what I wrote.  Why would you want to keep Bielema?  I definitely thought it was time to move on.  It looks as though the wheels are falling off the basketball team at this time, so stay tuned on that, but, still, last year's 26 wins in no way equate to 6-7 wins in football, more like 10 or 11.  Football's failure has been much more clear-cut than basketball's so far, although I admit after Wednesday's dismal performance I'm almost scared to turn on the tv to watch them today.